Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. IP 89-612-C.,IP 89-612-C. |
Citation | 796 F. Supp. 1152 |
Parties | ORECK CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Paul T. Meiklejohn, Seed & Berry, Seattle, Wash. and Richard L. Darst, Mantel, Cohen, Garelick, Reiswerg & Fishman, Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff.
James M. Durlacher, Woodard, Emhardt, Naughton, Moriarty & McNett, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant.
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In 1968, David Oreck, an authorized RCA dealer, had the idea to market RCA products using the words "XL" and "X-TENDED LIFE." However, concerned that the Federal Trade Commission might consider an "XL" mark misleading, RCA instructed Oreck not to use "XL" in connection with any RCA product.
Oreck complied with RCA's request, but was undaunted by RCA's rejection of his "XL" campaign, and, in 1969, started using "XL" and "X-TENDED LIFE" in association with other, non-RCA products that he sold from his dealership. In 1970, Oreck registered the "XL" trademark (for vacuum cleaners),1 but it was only a matter of time (one year) before RCA technology caught up with Oreck's advertising campaign.
In 1971, RCA began installing a 100% solid state chassis in its televisions, an improvement RCA believed "extended" the life of its televisions. No longer concerned with potential charges of deceptive advertising, RCA spoke to Oreck over the phone about using the "XL" designation; RCA knew Oreck had been using the "XL" mark on other, non-RCA products. After discussing the "XL" mark with Oreck, RCA sent Oreck the following letter:
28 April 1971
Dear Dave:
Oreck signed the tendered copy of the letter and returned it to RCA. RCA began using an "XL-100" mark on its televisions the following year, in 1972.
In 1975, RCA filed an Application for Trademark Registration of the "XL-100" mark with the Patent and Trademark Office. As part of that application, the Executive Vice President of RCA, Robert L. Werner, submitted an affidavit, which stated in part:
Werner believes said corporation to be the owner of the mark sought to be registered; to the best of his knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use said mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near or resemblance thereto as to be likely, when applied to the goods of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive; ...
Thomson's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Grounds of Laches, Estoppel, Acquiescence and Statute of Limitations, Exhibit 5.
Unaware of, or perhaps unconcerned by Oreck's prior registration of "XL," the Patent and Trademark Office approved and published for opposition the "XL-100" trademark on December 9, 1975. Oreck's attorney, Nichol Sandoe, who Oreck "charged with the responsibility of protecting Oreck Corporation's trademarks," (see Oreck's Deposition of September 11, 1990, p. 156),2 learned of the "XL-100" registration, and on January 7, 1976 filed a request for an extension of time to oppose registration of the "XL-100" trademark. However, Sandoe took no further action to oppose the "XL-100" registration nor did he tell Oreck that RCA had registered that trademark, and the "XL-100" trademark was registered without opposition on April 13, 1976. The "XL-100" registration remained uncontested for five years, and on April 13, 1981, the "XL-100" trademark became "incontestable." See 15 U.S.C. § 1056.
RCA enjoyed success with the "XL-100" campaign, and, in early 1977, RCA started using an "XtendedLife" mark on its televisions. Later that year, RCA filed an Application for the Registration of the "XtendedLife" mark with the Patent and Trademark Office.
Oreck learned about RCA's attempt to register the "XtendedLife" mark in 1977, and in the process, also discovered (although the record does not reveal exactly how) that RCA had already registered the "XL-100" mark. Angered by what he had discovered, Oreck instructed his attorney to remind RCA of his position that he, not RCA, owned "XL" and "X-TENDED LIFE." RCA apparently did not agree with Oreck's position, and the two began negotiating/debating the ownership and use of the "X-TENDED LIFE" mark.3 Eventually, Oreck offered to grant RCA a license to use the "X-TENDED LIFE" mark if RCA would withdraw its "Xtended-Life" registration application. Either RCA accepted that offer (according to Oreck's Deposition of April 18, 1989, see infra note 3, and Jack K. Sauter's Affidavit of March 9th, 1989, ¶ 4) or RCA refused Oreck's license offer, withdrew its trademark application for other reasons, and Oreck and RCA continued these negotiations/debates regarding the use and/or ownership of "XL-100" and/or "X-TENDED LIFE" until 19824 or 1987. ) . In any event, on September 16, 1982, RCA sent Oreck's attorney a letter regarding its final position regarding the "XL Marks." That letter, in relevant part, stated:
Hopgood's Deposition of April 24, 1991, Exhibit 18.
In 1988, Thomson Consumer Electronics, RCA's successor corporation,5 terminated Oreck's authority to sell RCA products and filed an action (in another court) against Oreck for non-payment of a debt. In response, on March 15, 1989, the Oreck Corporation filed this action against Thomson for trademark infringement, claiming (1) false designation of origin (of "XL-100" and "X-TENDED LIFE") under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) trademark infringement (of "XL-100" and "X-TENDED LIFE") under § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (3) fraudulent obtainment of a trademark registration (of "XL-100") under § 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119; (4) and (5) two violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (regarding "XL-100" and "X-TENDED LIFE"), and (6) unjust enrichment (regarding "XL-100" and "X-TENDED LIFE").6
Thomson filed its answer with counter-claims (alleging breach of contract and seeking cancellation of Oreck's "XL" trademark) and a motion to dismiss, claiming that Oreck's third claim, the claim upon which Thomson argues all infringement claims against the "XL-100" mark rest, is barred because it fails to state a claim of fraud. Thomson also filed a motion for summary judgement, claiming that even if Oreck has stated a claim of fraud, since Oreck could have filed suit as early as 1976 (when Sandoe requested an extension of time to contest the "XL-100" registration), Oreck's complaint is barred by a statute of limitations, laches, acquiescence, and estoppel. Thomson also filed a second motion for summary judgment based on the April 28, 1971 "waiver agreement." These motions for dismissal and summary judgment are the subject of this entry.
Addressing first Thomson's second motion for summary judgment, the Court is asked by Thomson to find as a matter of law that Oreck waived his interest in the trademark(s) at issue. Oreck claims, in response, that the April 28, 1971 letter represents only a part of an oral/written license. Oreck claims that prior (and subsequent) to signing the April 28, 1971 letter, Oreck and RCA verbally agreed that RCA could use the "XL" mark only for as long as RCA authorized Oreck as a distributor of RCA products. Oreck asserts in his declaration:
In 1971, when an RCA official asked me to sign the letter.... I was told, and understood at that time this letter merely reduced to writing the agreement which RCA and I had already orally consummated. That agreement, as I understood it then, and as I understand it now, was that RCA was an exclusive licensee under my mark "XL" and would continue as an exclusive licensee as long as McDonald Sales corporation continued as a distributor of "XL" television products.
Oreck's Declaration (not dated), ¶ 6.7
In support of his position, Oreck also filed with this Court a sworn declaration of an RCA employee, Jack K. Sauter, in which Sauter affirms:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barr Laboratories, Inc. v. Quantum Pharmics, Inc., No. CV-90-4406.
...at *17-19 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 1990) (applying Rule 9(b) to Lanham Act claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Elecs., Inc., 796 F.Supp. 1152, 1159 (S.D.Ind.1992) (applying Rule 9(b) to trademark registration fraud claim 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)) with Totaltape, Inc. v. Na......
-
Eco Manufacturing LLC v. Honeywell Intern., Inc.
...(affirming TTAB's cancellation of trademark for fraudulently obtaining registration); see also Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 796 F.Supp. 1152, 1160 (S.D.Ind.1992) ("Fraud will be deemed to exist only when there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Patent Office into r......
-
Exxon Corp. v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc.
...F.2d 689, 692-693 (2d Cir.1972); Croton Watch Co. v. Laughlin, 208 F.2d 93, 96-97 (2d Cir.1953); Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 796 F.Supp. 1152, 1157 n. 8 (S.D.Ind.1992). Determining whether or not a particular agreement risks the possibility of allowing an infringing u......
-
Tonka Corp. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc.
...& n. 5 (7th Cir.1978) (refusing to toll laches period during pendency of opposition proceedings) and Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 796 F.Supp. 1152, 1162 (S.D.Ind.1992) (registration of mark by trademark licensee gave licensor notice of breach of license agreement and b......
-
Best evidence rule
...First Charter Bank , 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 450, 12 Cal. App. 4th 1568 (Cal. App. 1993). 33 Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 1152 (S.D. Ind. 1992). 34 Travelers Indemnification Co. of Illinois v. CDL Hotels USA, Inc., 322 F.Supp.2d 482 (S.D.N.Y., 2004); General Elec. ......
-
Best Evidence Rule
...First Charter Bank , 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 450, 12 Cal. App. 4th 1568 (Cal. App. 1993). 27 Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 1152 (S.D. Ind. 1992). 28 Travelers Indemnification Co. of Illinois v. CDL Hotels USA, Inc., 322 F.Supp.2d 482 (S.D.N.Y., 2004); General Elec. ......
-
Best Evidence Rule
...First Charter Bank , 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 450, 12 Cal. App. 4th 1568 (Cal. App. 1993). 27 Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 1152 (S.D. Ind. 1992). 28 Travelers Indemnification Co. of Illinois v. CDL Hotels USA, Inc., 322 F.Supp.2d 482 (S.D.N.Y., 2004); General Elec. ......
-
Best Evidence Rule
...First Charter Bank , 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 450, 12 Cal. App. 4th 1568 (Cal. App. 1993). 27 Oreck Corp. v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 1152 (S.D. Ind. 1992). §2.400 Is It Admissible? 2-8 An “integrated” contract is one that contains the final and complete expression of the part......